Suggestion for Damage

[Kurnuttaja]

I think the current AR recoil would fit better for higher damage bullets. A hardcore mode without crosshairs would be a great addition.

[Humate]

And it’d mean more campers. :mad:

And it would also mean, less players on the servers with each day.
But hey, whatever you think makes the game more interesting.

[iFork]

damage currently is fine as it is, having a COD system just ruins the whole parkour out of bullets thing since 1-3 bullets will shoot you down.

[Smoochy]

[QUOTE=Nexolate;343029]I can get behind this. Recoil would need to be increased to compensate for this though. The higher the damage the higher the recoil raise.

Brink already has more recoil than most shooters on some weapons, so it’s entirely possible to have a hardcore mode or the like to cater for fans of such.

Regards,
Nexo[/QUOTE]

an extra mode to split the community? eek

[tokamak]

It is indeed to enhance the tactical side of the game. It would make the game a lot easier to pick up for new players as getting kills is easier, but that would disservice other parts. And it’d mean more campers. :mad:

Well that clears up a lot

What an appalling attitude. How the hell can campers ever be a problem in a game where everything revolves around securing important areas and objectives?

Low damage isn’t tactical at all. It rewards cognitive skills, not cerebral skills. Having low damage means that you can correct your mistakes once you find yourself in a wrong position. It means you have to worry about it less and that you can get by on mobility and aiming alone. It mitigates the advantage of getting the drop on someone which in turn makes map control less relevant.

ETQW is tons more tactical than Brink simply because when you’re making the wrong move at the wrong time, you’re dead.

Brink is a spray’n pray fest, the tactics have been pidgeonholed into staying together and circlejerking each other with the F-key. By reducing the individual potential of the player individual incentives and any creative attempts are being discouraged to the point of not being viable at all.

In all honesty, it’s like Brink was made by a different company than the one that gave us ET.

[Humate]

:oppressor: :stroggflag::orbital::icarus:

[Exedore]

Having low damage means that you can correct your mistakes once you find yourself in a wrong position. It means you have to worry about it less and that you can get by on mobility and aiming alone. It mitigates the advantage of getting the drop on someone which in turn makes map control less relevant.

In every statement I agree with your observation, but not necessarily your conclusion.

It’s something we were even asked about by our FPS developer peers, as we were certainly going against the current “more accessible” trend of shooters that favoured higher damage. If players are staying together more, even at the cost of individual potential, our intentions worked.

[wolfnemesis75]

damage is fine in Brink it keeps the game about teamwork rather than being a lone soldier. I played a match last night on Resort where the Res team could not even get into the room with the pillar. They stayed around the outside areas and mostly near the hack portion. it was annoying because they just seemed like they had no idea what to do. it was 8v8 all humans. They were either very new at the game, or were seriously confused. I think some people are skipping the in-game tutorial, challenges, and not reading the manual. increasing the damage would only help make the game too much about spawn camping and lonewolfing. its like some people are jumping in and expecting it to be like COD and are running up against a brick wall.

[tokamak]

[QUOTE=Exedore;343097]In every statement I agree with your observation, but not necessarily your conclusion.

It’s something we were even asked about by our FPS developer peers, as we were certainly going against the current “more accessible” trend of shooters that favoured higher damage. If players are staying together more, even at the cost of individual potential, our intentions worked.[/QUOTE]

So you’re of the opinion that ETQW didn’t have enough teamwork? I’m just asking as I have trouble believing what I’m reading here. Staying together and simply being a good shot are both trivial skills compared to what’s possible in complex shooters like these. Anyone can clump up together and if you’re natural with your mouse, so be it.

Of course nobody here wants a COD. They’ve gone to the other end where each player already had huge individual potential from the start regardless of his skill. I know a lot of casual gamers that brag about their winning streaks, I can tell you that they didn’t rack up their streaks because of their own skill.

I’m also not asking for a BrinkPro either. I don’t like the way competitive gamers aproach the shooter genre either. They put all eggs in the cognitive skill basket by almost completely eliminating spread regardless of your stance and movement. Individual potential would be all about hand-eye coordination which I feel makes the game more simple and pushes the intellectual and creative aspect out of it.

What ETQW did right is that it hit the sweetspot between individual potential and group work. In ETQW teams were scary, there’s no way you could deal with them on hand-eye coordination skills alone. You can’t out-shoot them and you can’t out strave them. However if you had a plan you could deal with them and that’s where the game turned truly tactical. A player with a deep understanding of the game could find a weak spot in the team and come crashing down on it.

In ETQW teamwork isn’t just staying together, as a team it’s your responsibility to have all your bases covered. The turrets, the radar, anti-artillery, supplies and vehicles all required to be taken care off according to the team’s play-style. Everything is physically presented on the battlefield and it requires a cheesy A-team style of thinking to solve the obstacles presented by your team. It demanded creativity. Things like forming distractions, denying areas with artillery, surprising them from unexpected angles it’s all there.

As an individual ETQW player your potential depended on the team work in both teams. Without much communication you were still able to make them do the right things. If you held a forward spawn for long enough you were guaranteed that eventually team-mates will arrive and support you. If you were able to distract a few opponent players and prompt them into fighting over a location that wasn’t entirely important to them, your diversion would have succeeded into considerably weakening the entire opponent team.

Your cognitive skills certainly help, but it’s having a clear and effective plan that made you dangerous as an individual in ETQW. Not just as a lone-wolf, but as a potent asset to your own team.

-Small side note: You guys already seem to have understood all this. It was another assymetrical aspect between the teams in QW. Strogg players were nudged towards more individual play with their stroyent transfer, better weapon dosage and their more individually oriented vehicles. GDF had a stronger team-structure, higher capacity in vehicles and the weapons were more effective in cohesive groups. -

All this is gone in Brink. There’s no specific strengths the opponent puts to you, it’s just a group of generic dudes with generic guns waiting at or attacking the generic objective. Every form of thinking, figuring out and scheming has been picked up and institutionalised. Your job is to stick with the herd, even though the herd isn’t doing what it’s supposed to be doing or doing what it could do best.

It’s not just the low damage. It’s the combination of low general damage, high headshot damage and a ridiculous spread. These three combined make confrontations more like rolling dice than anything else. If the only way to determine a battle is to simply roll more dice than the others then you’ve seen everything the game has to offer after a few matches.

Whatever your plans are don’t really matter, you’re not going to be able to execute them as easily because you won’t be able to individually carry them out. You think you can hold this position with your heavy gun until reinforcements arrive like you could in ETQW? Ha! Tough.

It’s safety scissors and rubber-coated playgrounds from here. You’re not making a game more accessible, you’re making it bland and boring. COD does it with granting godlike powers to a player with individual killstreaks so anyone can feel adequate in the game, you do it by rewarding them for such a trivial and dumb thing like staying in a group. They’re two poles apart and ETQW sits right in the middle having all it’s complexity, subtlety and creativity still intact.

Splash Damage clearly knows how to make interesting shooters, interesting populair shooters at that. But somewhere down the line you’ve lost the trust in the average shooter player and started chewing everything out for them.

[wolfnemesis75]

I am gonna say something that needs saying: Get Better at playing Brink. Don’t wish for it to be made easier.

[dazman76]

Toka - epic post. Partly for the way you wrote it, but also for reminding me just how awesome the ET:QW design was. I really must get back into playing it - I keep saying I will, but something else seems to get in the way. Damn you Real Life™.

[Nexolate]

I am gonna say something that needs saying: Get Better at playing Brink. Don’t wish for it to be made easier.

I think the idea is not to make the game easier, just to make firefights more intense.

It would make my character’s life more meaningul as currently the only time I genuinely think about combat is when the enemy has a CARB-9. Otherwise it’s just head on out, throw a nade or two and just shoot, shoot, shoot until they eventually drop. Then die because you had to use all of your magazine killing that one enemy.

Spread doesn’t help much either as going for headshots wastes as much ammo as just unloading into their torso. At least that was my experience when using automatics.

Regards,
Nexo

[Cep]

[QUOTE=tokamak;343133]So you’re of the opinion that ETQW didn’t have enough teamwork? I’m just asking as I have trouble believing what I’m reading here. Staying together and simply being a good shot are both trivial skills compared to what’s possible in complex shooters like these. Anyone can clump up together and if you’re natural with your mouse, so be it.

Of course nobody here wants a COD. They’ve gone to the other end where each player already had huge individual potential from the start regardless of his skill. I know a lot of casual gamers that brag about their winning streaks, I can tell you that they didn’t rack up their streaks because of their own skill.

I’m also not asking for a BrinkPro either. I don’t like the way competitive gamers aproach the shooter genre either. They put all eggs in the cognitive skill basket by almost completely eliminating spread regardless of your stance and movement. Individual potential would be all about hand-eye coordination which I feel makes the game more simple and pushes the intellectual and creative aspect out of it.

What ETQW did right is that it hit the sweetspot between individual potential and group work. In ETQW teams were scary, there’s no way you could deal with them on hand-eye coordination skills alone. You can’t out-shoot them and you can’t out strave them. However if you had a plan you could deal with them and that’s where the game turned truly tactical. A player with a deep understanding of the game could find a weak spot in the team and come crashing down on it.

In ETQW teamwork isn’t just staying together, as a team it’s your responsibility to have all your bases covered. The turrets, the radar, anti-artillery, supplies and vehicles all required to be taken care off according to the team’s play-style. Everything is physically presented on the battlefield and it requires a cheesy A-team style of thinking to solve the obstacles presented by your team. It demanded creativity. Things like forming distractions, denying areas with artillery, surprising them from unexpected angles it’s all there.

As an individual ETQW player your potential depended on the team work in both teams. Without much communication you were still able to make them do the right things. If you held a forward spawn for long enough you were guaranteed that eventually team-mates will arrive and support you. If you were able to distract a few opponent players and prompt them into fighting over a location that wasn’t entirely important to them, your diversion would have succeeded into considerably weakening the entire opponent team.

Your cognitive skills certainly help, but it’s having a clear and effective plan that made you dangerous as an individual in ETQW. Not just as a lone-wolf, but as a potent asset to your own team.

-Small side note: You guys already seem to have understood all this. It was another assymetrical aspect between the teams in QW. Strogg players were nudged towards more individual play with their stroyent transfer, better weapon dosage and their more individually oriented vehicles. GDF had a stronger team-structure, higher capacity in vehicles and the weapons were more effective in cohesive groups. -

All this is gone in Brink. There’s no specific strengths the opponent puts to you, it’s just a group of generic dudes with generic guns waiting at or attacking the generic objective. Every form of thinking, figuring out and scheming has been picked up and institutionalised. Your job is to stick with the herd, even though the herd isn’t doing what it’s supposed to be doing or doing what it could do best.

It’s not just the low damage. It’s the combination of low general damage, high headshot damage and a ridiculous spread. These three combined make confrontations more like rolling dice than anything else. If the only way to determine a battle is to simply roll more dice than the others then you’ve seen everything the game has to offer after a few matches.

Whatever your plans are don’t really matter, you’re not going to be able to execute them as easily because you won’t be able to individually carry them out. You think you can hold this position with your heavy gun until reinforcements arrive like you could in ETQW? Ha! Tough.

It’s safety scissors and rubber-coated playgrounds from here. You’re not making a game more accessible, you’re making it bland and boring. COD does it with granting godlike powers to a player with individual killstreaks so anyone can feel adequate in the game, you do it by rewarding them for such a trivial and dumb thing like staying in a group. They’re two poles apart and ETQW sits right in the middle having all it’s complexity, subtlety and creativity still intact.

Splash Damage clearly knows how to make interesting shooters, interesting populair shooters at that. But somewhere down the line you’ve lost the trust in the average shooter player and started chewing everything out for them.[/QUOTE]

OMG Toka, rep drive by for you my friend you hit the nail on the head! Awesome post!

[wolfnemesis75]

[QUOTE=Nexolate;343235]I think the idea is not to make the game easier, just to make firefights more intense.

It would make my character’s life more meaningul as currently the only time I genuinely think about combat is when the enemy has a CARB-9. Otherwise it’s just head on out, throw a nade or two and just shoot, shoot, shoot until they eventually drop. Then die because you had to use all of your magazine killing that one enemy.

Spread doesn’t help much either as going for headshots wastes as much ammo as just unloading into their torso. At least that was my experience when using automatics.

Regards,
Nexo[/QUOTE]

I strafe while shooting, which is why I want a more accurate gun than Carb-9. And I win more firefights than I lose. Also, I glance over to the health bar a lot, and am constantly referencing it. Not saying this is happening to you, but: sometimes you can get beat when the other team has damage buffts and such from command posts. And you see that Carb-9 symbol on the screen and may think the gun is overpowered. Do you know what I mean? When, you may be getting killed by lots of guns for the same reason. So, if I feel as if I am taking too much damage, more than I expected, I will back off, or glance to see if we have a command post. Also, this is the reason why I choose high cap mags. I want consistency and all-round despite range. Carb-9 may be great if the enemy can close, but it also makes them reckless. Not sure if I am helping. The damage increases in the game come from team support in the vein of weapon buffs, command post captures, and attachments. Lots of people are playing lights and their weapon selection is limited which also leads to use of certain guns. Some of it is just falling in to “Me too” because there are no fast and hard rules of what weapon is best. It really does come down to preference. If you nerf such and such a gun, then next you will be getting killed a lot by the Belgo or something else. When one thing is weaker, the next is stronger.

[AmishWarMachine]

I honestly think that people voicing concerns about damage don’t truly factor in buffs and how greatly they affect them and/or their opponent. More specifically: which buffs they themselves have, and which buffs their opponent has.

A light w/ a double-health buff, upgraded-health-CP buff, kevlar, and improved weapon buff will seem like a walking death machine to an un-buffed heavy.

Yet another shining example of why/how teamwork is vital to survival/success in Brink, and why I love the game.

[tokamak]

Buffs (of any type) would even be more scary if the overall damage was higher.

[riptide]

I am gonna say something that needs saying: Get Better at playing Brink. Don’t wish for it to be made easier.

Just so we are clear making a game more reflex based does not make it easier. You probably should look at it from both perspectives. If you go up against somebody with superior reflexes… doesn’t it mean the game just got harder for you?

Buffs (of any type) would even be more scary if the overall damage was higher.

I agree thus nerf engineer weapon buff to 12 and 20% respectively. Then you can increase the damage of specific guns with a 13% leeway. This would kill 2 birds with one stone since it balances the offense and defense more. Because even in pubs the defense will have a significantly better chance of having all buffs. Whereas offense is going to be scattered about and staggered spawns.

Honestly I don’t care if the damage per bullet stays the same or not… but I do want more accurate guns with reliable spread patterns or less cone of fire. I shouldn’t have to expend 6 bullets to get 1 headshot If I only have their head in my sights.

[tokamak]

Reflex based wouldn’t be the right word. If a player finds himself in the right position he should be able to waste an entire group of players. This works in ETQW, this works certainly in W:ET, but it doesn’t work in Brink. People have ample time to respond to your wet fart.

[riptide]

Reflex based wouldn’t be the right word. If a player finds himself in the right position he should be able to waste an entire group of players. This works in ETQW, this works certainly in W:ET, but it doesn’t work in Brink. People have ample time to respond to your wet fart.

Ya I guess it isn’t…for the point I was making but it’s still true!

As far as what you’re saying I agree and I honestly thinking making the guns more reliable and consistent would go a long way to addressing that.

also I edited my previous post.

[nephandys]

[QUOTE=Nexolate;343235]I think the idea is not to make the game easier, just to make firefights more intense.

It would make my character’s life more meaningul as currently the only time I genuinely think about combat is when the enemy has a CARB-9. Otherwise it’s just head on out, throw a nade or two and just shoot, shoot, shoot until they eventually drop. Then die because you had to use all of your magazine killing that one enemy.

Spread doesn’t help much either as going for headshots wastes as much ammo as just unloading into their torso. At least that was my experience when using automatics.

Regards,
Nexo[/QUOTE]
The double Engi buff increases dmg by what 33%? This is part of the reason base dmg is relatively lower (I think).

Keeping this in mind (and that you should always have an Engi buff if you are playing as a team) Who uses a whole magazine of anything to kill anyone in this game? I keep reading this, but have yet to experience it. Unless the shooter is a terrible shot or you are killing a double life buffed heavy with upgraded health command post and battle hardened, then maybe it takes a whole clip. Generally speaking, regardless of the weapon I can get at least 3-4 kills per magazine.

Considering the bulk of players run around with a Carb-9 with drum mag, the Seagle, the Ritchie, etc. it makes no sense to me that it would take you a whole clip to kill people considering I kill 3-4 with one clip from my Kross w/ drum mag or Gerund, Rhett, what have you.

It might also be worth mentioning that there are 1-3 shot weapons in this game Ritchie or Rifles (as well as other guns) w/ Engi buffs are just plain nasty.

There’s plenty of tweaks that are needed in this game, but IMO increasing overall dmg isn’t one of them.